Old Graphics vs New Graphics

[username993720]

Seeing the debate over Hogger's new model has made me think... over the years the game had become more and more cartoonish in contrast to the more realistic style vanilla had.

Which style do you prefer better, the more realistic vanilla-style graphics or the more cartoonish, modern graphics?















I, personally, prefer the old style of graphics. It felt more immersive, especially when there were weather effects.

[Shakzor]

Your comparison here is literally dark places vs bright places
The only real difference is the draw distance and having more stuff to see at farther away distances
Also wtf u mean "more realistic vanilla style"? It's literally the same cartoony artstyle

[kranur]

It's not really that black and white like old is 100% better than new or vice versa. Some of the new landscapes and models are very good while some just look that they're from a different game/universe.
For example look at Revendreth ... that is fucking amazing. And then there's the Hogger example which is just an abomination ... and not in a good way.

[hllfrmththrsd]

It's not realistic versus cartoonish, it's low quality versus high quality. Warcraft has a consistent design style that comes from WCIII and maybe even from WCII. It just pumps up the quality every time.

[Celvira]

Atmosphere seems to be more important (in most cases) than graphics in leaving a lasting impression. I personally adore the desecrated, oppressive darkness found in zones like Duskwood and The Plaguelands despite both environments being littered with laughably blocky interiors and barren structures. But despite such drawbacks, I was captivated by the central theme and aesthetic the zones presented me with, and I remember them fondly today.

Ravendreth are Drustvar are examples of two new zones, and both are equally as expressive and gorgeous as Duskwood and The Plaguelands.

[Kumorii]

Really bugs me when people think "dark" means realistic... WoW is and has always been cartoony.
They had a darker atmospherics than now, but that's not realism.

I do want WoW to be a bit darker though...

[thilicen]

Whoever thinks vanilla was "realistic" really has no fucking clue what they are on about.

[Gaidax]

Vanilla realistic kekw. What's next story? TBC refined armor selection vs "new" mishmash?

[Xilurm]

It's not realistic versus cartoonish, it's low quality versus high quality. Warcraft has a consistent design style that comes from WCIII and maybe even from WCII. It just pumps up the quality every time.

Pretty much. Early WoW wasn't so vibrant either, it was darker.

[Iain]

The new environments look better. The only issue is that they're so dense compared to the old zones. It's as if Blizzard suddenly decided that every square inch of land has to have a purpose, as if it's expensive real estate rather than virtual land of which they can have as much as they need.

[Funkyjunky]

It was never realistic.

It's not realistic versus cartoonish, it's low quality versus high quality. Warcraft has a consistent design style that comes from WCIII and maybe even from WCII. It just pumps up the quality every time.

I disagree. Hogger/gnoll model is a good example. It's not consistent. It's not an updated model - It's clearly different in style and while the quality has become better, it surely isn't the same style.

[potis]

Lol, calling the 3 skeleton 200 textures realistic, over the 1500 skeleton, 2.000.000 textures cartoonish.

Oh noes, they changed the irrelevant gnoll that was literally 3 square textures for a face to a proper face, there goes 1 raid tier, WoW is dead.

I get repetitive but this is why some of us do not take posters on here seriously anymore, why cant you do a basic google research as to how graphical textures and design work, or watch any of the Blizzcon videos of the last 15 years where they explain this also before making such posts.

We had the same discussion with the change of Orcs years ago "OH NO, THE 5 SQUARE TEXTURES ORC FACE IS MORE BRUTAL THAN THE PROPERLY MADE 1500 TEXTURES NEW ORC FACE" yeah, it is not.

[Hitei]

Pretty much. Early WoW wasn't so vibrant either, it was darker.

Lol.

[Master Factician]

You're cherry picking. I greatly dislike a lot of the artstyle in Dragonflight and to a lesser degree, Shadowlands, but BfA had far more realistic and darker themes than Vanilla did.

Vanilla models and terrain textures in Hillsbrad on the right, VS BfA update of Arathi Highlands on the left:



You can make current Undead player characters look like they belong in a survival horror game:



Mechagon at night:



My Paladin in Classic WSG:



My Paladin in Remastered WSG:

[Funkyjunky]

Lol, calling the 3 skeleton 200 textures realistic, over the 1500 skeleton, 2.000.000 textures cartoonish.

Oh noes, they changed the irrelevant gnoll that was literally 3 square textures for a face to a proper face, there goes 1 raid tier, WoW is dead.

I get repetitive but this is why some of us do not take posters on here seriously anymore, why cant you do a basic google research as to how graphical textures and design work, or watch any of the Blizzcon videos of the last 15 years where they explain this also before making such posts.

We had the same discussion with the change of Orcs years ago "OH NO, THE 5 SQUARE TEXTURES ORC FACE IS MORE BRUTAL THAN THE PROPERLY MADE 1500 TEXTURES NEW ORC FACE" yeah, it is not.

How about the new model does not resemble the old model? It's not about the number of vertices or textures. HOTS hogger has more but retains the look and feel.

[potis]

How about the new model does not resemble the old model? It's not about the number of vertices or textures. HOTS hogger has more but retains the look and feel.

Yeah, lets not get to deep into the discussion, and to me the HOTS model looks like a fat pitbull, compared to how Gnolls looked in WC3 where is more like a Wolf/German Shepperd, so none of the models are accurate to me, someone that played WC3 since it came out.

See what i did there?

In the end all of this is irrelevant, i cant even comprehend how people waste their time with these things, but my post was more towards the fact that, if you care so much about something, at least do the research behind it, for the original post about the areas, not sure how you ended up on Hogger, maybe confused the 2 posts?

[Nerovar]

The classic art style looks better for the most part. Everything looks more worn down and grimy which creates a different atmosphere. Just compare the old stromgarde ruins to the new Stromgarde they built with reused garrison assets.

[Foolicious]

The new environments look better. The only issue is that they're so dense compared to the old zones. It's as if Blizzard suddenly decided that every square inch of land has to have a purpose, as if it's expensive real estate rather than virtual land of which they can have as much as they need.

I think this comes down to a general shift in game development. The most common complaint for open world games is a too large world with too little in it. Make it big with lots to see and do and its too full and players feel like they will never see everything there is.
While it was "fashionable" to make realistic large worlds with huge spaces of nothing but trees, deserts or stuff like that years ago thats not the case anymore.

There are still the ones out there that enjoy this and enjoy to travel and just take in the environment the majority doesn't want to spend their time traveling "wasting time" anymore so every inch of land has a purpose to the player.

[Skirdus]

People can argue over which style is more "realistic" or "darker" as much as they want, but I personally prefer the atmosphere of vanilla zones over modern ones. There's no argument to be made that modern WoW is an objective improvement over that

[Venziir]

Calling WoW realistic, is like calling McD gourmet food....